| Case ID |
0fefe90c-9ae1-4419-8e47-4ea1ef3e6d30 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
ITR Misc. Case No. 599 of 1962 |
| Decision Date |
Aug 13, 1965 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court ruled that the partnership between Dady and Minoo was entitled to registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. The Excise Commissioner had canceled the renewal of registration on the grounds of illegality due to the partnership's engagement in the liquor business without a proper license. However, the court found that the partnership was genuine, and there was no violation of the excise rules as the business was being conducted under the license issued to Dady. The court emphasized the distinction between the individual licensee and the partnership, stating that the partnership did not equate to a transfer of the license, thus allowing the partnership to be registered. |
| Summary |
In the case of JER & Co v. Commissioner of INCOME TAX, the Allahabad High Court examined the legality of a partnership formed for the wholesale vending of foreign liquor under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910. The case arose when the Commissioner of Income-tax canceled the partnership's registration, alleging that it violated the terms of the excise license held by one partner, Dady. The court analyzed the provisions of the U.P. Excise Act and the Indian Income-tax Act, determining that the partnership was valid and entitled to registration. The court's decision highlighted the importance of understanding the relationship between individual licensees and partnerships, clarifying that entering into a partnership did not automatically constitute a transfer of the license. This ruling is significant for legal practitioners in the field of tax law, excise regulations, and partnership agreements, providing clarity on the registration of partnerships in the context of excise licenses. Key legal terms include 'partnership registration,' 'excise licenses,' and 'Indian Income-tax Act,' which are essential for understanding the complexities involved in this case. |
| Court |
Allahabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
M.C. Desai, C.J.,
S.C. Manchanda, J
|
| Lawyers |
Gopal Behari for the Applicant,
R.L. Gulati for the Respondent
|
| Petitioners |
JER & Co
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of INCOME TAX
|
| Citations |
1966 SLD 174,
(1966) 60 ITR 335
|
| Other Citations |
Chandaji Sukhraj & Co. v. Lal & Co. [1960] A.I.R. 1960 A.P. 444,
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Benarsi Das & Co. [1962] 44 I.T.R. 835,
Commissioner of Income-tax v. K. C. S. Reddy [1960] 38 I.T.R. 560,
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Krishna Reddy [1962] 46 I.T.R. 784,
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Roopnarain Ramchandra [1966] 60 I.T.R. 314,
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Union Tobacco Co. [1961] 41 I.T.R. 115,
Gowri Shankar v. Mumtaz Ali Khan [1878-1880] I.L.R. 2 All. 411,
Govindaraj v. Kandaswami [1957] A.I.R. 1957 Mad. 186,
Harla v. State of Rajasthan [1951] A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 467,
Hormasji Motabhai v. Pestanji Dhanjibhai [1887] I.L.R. 12 Bom. 422,
Italia (J.D.) v. Cowasjee [1944] A.I.R. 1944 Mad. 295,
Mohideen Sahib (D.) & Co v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1950] 18 I.T.R. 200,
Radhey Shiyam v. Mewa Lal [1929] A.I.R. 1929 All. 210,
Shiam Behari Lal v. Malhi [1939] IL.R. [1939] All. 107,
Shiv Dayal v. Firm Bishan Dass [1961] A.I.R. 1961 Punj. 405,
Thiagaraja Pillai v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1965] 55 I.T.R. 419,
Uma Charan Shaw & Bros v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1959] 37 I.T.R. 271 (S.C),
Velu Padayachi v. Sivasooriam Pillai [1950] 1 M L. J. 315; A I.R. 1950 Mad. 444
|
| Laws Involved |
U.P. Excise Act, 1910,
U.P. Excise Rules, 1910
|
| Sections |
24,
31,
322
|